• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Which do you think? I think both the headline and the article made it clear what they’re being criticized for.

    • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      They’re tiptoeing around what the vandals are by using mitigating language. It’s journalistic dishonesty. It’s the same kind of shit as headlines about Matt Gaetz “sleeping with a minor” or calling the Jan 6th insurrection a “protest” or “riot”, or headlines that use softer or harsher wording to describe the same actions by people of different races.

      They’re technically true. They all make it clear what they’re reporting on. But they do it in a way that mitigates or elevates the implied severity of the crime.

      Growing pet peeve of mine.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        There’s nothing dishonest about it. They were visitors. They were destroying ancient rock formations at Lake Mead. It was entirely factual. They don’t need to be given the epithet of vandal before that has been decided in court anyway.